i

Ateneo de Davao University

Jacinto St., Davao City

Experiment Number 3 - Friction Losses in Gate Valves and Fittings

A Laboratory Report

Submitted as a Requirement on Chemical Engineering Laboratory I

Submitted by:

Daquipa, Therese Ann P.

Endraca, Ronald Sebastian M.

Labtic, Rachel Faith P.

Peña, Paolo Miguel M.

Samson, Dana Gabrielle C.

Submitted to:

Engr. Eva Marie C. Mendoza

 ii

ATENEO DE DAVAO UNIVERSITY

SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING AND ARCHITECTURE
Chemical Engineering Department

Unit Operations Laboratory 1

Name of Students:

EXPERIMENT NO. ____

( Title of the Experiment )

Evaluation Reports Ratings

1. Does the result section contain the 0 2 4 6 8 10

essence of the study?

2. Does the report show 0 2 4 6 8 10

understanding
of technical and calculation work?

3. Does the report show 0 2 4 6 8 10

understanding
of relevant theory especially in the
discussion section?

4. Is the report technically correct and 0 2 4 6 8 10

complete in its coverage?

5. What is the level of presentation 0 2 4 6 8 10

(clarity, grammar, spelling, text,
tables, illustrations, exhibits and
charts?)

6. Is the report on time? 0 -1 -2 -3 -4 -5

Total Points: ______________

GRADE: ______________
 1

A. ABSTRACT

The friction loss in gate valves and fittings is the energy lost caused by the resistances
against the flow of the fluid. For this experiment, the friction losses and its equivalent length were
determined through the simplified Bernoulli’s equation:
ΔP 𝑓𝐿𝑒𝑞 𝑉 2
= = 𝑙𝑤𝑓
ρ 2𝑔𝑐 𝐷
The pressure drops and flow rates were experimental data obtained from the varied
openings of the gate valves. The opening of the gate valves was changed into fully and one-half
(½) opened for a total of three (3) trials each experimental condition. Through the Bernoulli’s
equation, the friction loss (lwf) and the equivalent lengths (Leq) were determined by the velocities
and pressure drop for each condition. For fully opened gate valves, the average friction factor was
calculated to be 6.24 X 10-4, for an equivalent length (Leq) of 4.45. From the calculated friction
factor, the equivalent lengths for the remaining conditions can be calculated through the equation.
It can be observed that the Leq ranging from each condition, where the gate valve is turned at a
certain position, increases as the opening decreases. Lastly, the friction loss (lwf) can be calculated
from the equation from all the data acquired.
It is of great importance to consider the accuracy of the equipment when conducting an
experiment. The cause for the presence of outliers in this experiment was the pressure gauges used
on the equipment. Therefore, the manometer readings show an unstable data for each trial which
resulted to inaccurate information.
 2

B. TABLE OF CONTENTS

Title Page . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i

Rubrics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii

A. Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

B. Table of Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

C. Introduction/Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

D. Equipment and Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

E. Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

F. Discussion and Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

G. Reference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Table 1: Fully open gate valves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Table 2: 1/2 Open gate valve 1 & 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Table 3: Fully open gate valve 1 and 1/2 open gate valve 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

Table 4: 1/2 Open gate valve 1 and fully open gate valve 2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
 3

C. INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND

OBJECTIVE

To determine the friction losses in gate valves and pipe fittings and their equivalent length.

INTRODUCTION

In a fluid flow, there must be a certain amount of energy to keep the fluid moving, and a
portion of this energy is lost due to the resistance that exist against the fluid flow. The friction loss
in gate valves and fittings is the loss of energy due to viscous effects or by the resistance to flow
offered by the roughness of pipe at the walls. Pipes with a smoother surface offer little to negligible
resistance while rougher surfaces offer higher resistances depending on its degree.

The friction loss of the fluid is also affected by the changes in the direction of the flow,
usually when the fluid flows in elbows, pipe bends, junctions, and valves. The diameter of the pipe
(D) also has an effect on the friction loss of the fluid flow wherein decreasing the diameter of the
pipe also results to a smaller flow area. This causes the velocity of the fluid to increase and as the
velocity increases, it shows a proportional relationship where the friction loss due to friction also
increases. Also, the friction loss in the pipe depends on whether the flow is turbulent or laminar
wherein the roughness of the wall affects the flow. Lastly, one way of quantifying the frictional
losses due to pipe fittings is determining the equivalent length (Leq), which is the length of pipe
with the same resistance as the fitting or valve. Equivalent lengths of fittings may also be correlated
by a resistance coefficient (K).

To determine the equivalent length of the fittings, Bernoulli’s equation can be used:

ΔP 𝑔ΔZ Δ𝑣 2
+ + = −𝑊𝑠 − 𝑙𝑤𝑓
ρ 𝑔𝑐 𝑔𝑐

However, there is no difference in the elevation (ΔZ) since the pipes are horizontal, the
system does not involve the use of any pump, and the velocity difference (Δ𝑣) in both ends of the
pipe is zero (0). Thus, the Bernoulli’s equation becomes:

ΔP 𝑓𝐿𝑒𝑞 𝑉 2
=
ρ 2𝑔𝑐 𝐷

For this experiment, the objectives are to calculate and determine the friction losses and its
equivalent lengths from different conditions of the gate valves.
 4

D. EQUIPMENT AND METHODS

 HydroLab Unit  Calibrated (measuring) vessel

 Stopwatch  Water Supply

 5

E. RESULTS

Table 1: Fully open gate valves

Trial ∆P, psia ∀, ft3/s V, ft/s F (friction factor) lwf (friction loss)
1 0.4 0.0298 3.50 7.89E-04 6.41E-03
2 0.4 0.0313 3.67 7.17E-04 6.41E-03
3 0.2 0.0309 3.63 3.67E-04 3.21E-03
Average 0.3 0.03067 3.60 6.24E-04 5.34E-03
Leq = 4.45 ft

Table 2: 1/2 Open gate valve 1 & 2

Trial ∆P, psia ∀, ft3/s V, ft/s Leq, ft lwf (Friction loss)

1 0.5 0.0300 3.52 6.94 8.01E-03

2 0.8 0.0297 3.49 11.33 1.28E-02
3 0.6 0.0299 3.51 8.39 9.62E-03
Average 0.6 0.0300 3.51 8.89 0.01

Table 3: Fully open gate valve 1 and 1/2 open gate valve 2
Trial ∆P, psia ∀, ft3/s V, ft/s Leq, ft lwf (Friction loss)

1 0.5 0.0307 3.52 6.63 8.01E-03

2 0.4 0.0320 3.49 4.88 6.41E-03
3 0.4 0.0313 3.51 5.10 6.41E-03
Average 0.4 0.0313 3.51 5.54 0.0069

Table 4: 1/2 Open gate valve 1 and fully open gate valve 2
Trial ∆P, psia ∀, ft3/s V, ft/s Leq, ft
lwf (Friction loss)
1 0.4 0.0304 3.57 5.41
6.41E-03
2 0.4 0.0307 3.60 5.30
6.41E-03
3 0.4 0.0300 3.52 5.55
6.41E-03
Average 0.4 0.0304 3.57 5.42
0.01
 6

There were four (4) different configurations tested in the experiment. Each gate valve was
either fully opened or half opened during these tests. Three (3) trials for each condition were
conducted.

For the first test, the two gate valves were fully opened. The average pressure differences
between the two (2) pressure gauges for (a) fully open gate valves, (b) valve 1 and valve 2 – ½
open, (c) valve 1 – fully open, valve 2 – ½ open, (d) valve 1 – ½ open, valve 2 – fully open were
0.3 psia, 0.6 psia, 0.4 psia, and 0.4 psia, respectively.

In order to determine the flowrate, the time was recorded until six (6) liters of water has
flowed. Given that the diameter of the pipe is 1 and ¼ inch, the velocity can be solved with the
given volumetric flowrate and area. It can be observed that for all configurations, there is a
consistency on the fluid velocity at ~ 3.5 ft/s.

The equivalent length (Leq) of the pipes and fittings was given 4.45 ft. From this given data
we could calculate the friction factor for the valves that are fully open.

F. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

DISCUSSION

Firstly, despite the changes in the configurations, the readings of the pressure gauges were
almost constant. This may be due to several cases of equipment error: (1) The installed pressure
gauges may have experienced some malfunctions due to the frequency of its usage, its accuracy
and qualities may have degraded as it is not used as often. (2) The said pressure gauges do not give
a definite reading most of the time, the equipment experienced pressure reading fluctuations
throughout the experimentation. Additionally, when the flow of the fluid is turned off, the gauges
would still not achieve the reading of 0 psia, this is due to the presence of vacuum within the
gauges. With this, the observed pressures were added by the recorded pre-flow reading of the
gauges.

For the flow rate, all recorded flow rates were quite similar, thus this same goes to the
calculated flow velocity. The reason behind this is the consistency of the pipe diameter which
means that less friction will be observed. Furthermore, the contributors of the friction experienced
by the fluid were only the gate valves, the elbow and tee en route to the exit pipe. After the fluid
passes the gate valves, it would still travel a considerable length which means that the pressure
difference during its passage in the gate valve has been recovered already by the time it reaches
the exit. Theoretically, there should be a change in the flow velocity, however, in this case, it
cannot be observed properly due to the design of the equipment. Finally, all configurations follow
the same direction flow thus indeed, a near-constant volumetric flow rate is expected.
 7

Lastly, it can be observed that as the gate valves’ opening are reduced, the calculated
equivalent length increases. When the passage of the fluid restricts, it creates a higher pressure
difference based on the continuity equation which means a relatively higher degree of friction loss
is experienced, thus increasing the equivalent length. Another observation from the equivalent
lengths is that when one gate valve is half-open while the other is fully open, the configuration
where the full-open gate valve (condition 4) comes first does have the higher equivalent length,
this is due to the fact that prior to the exit point of the pipe, the location of the half-open gate valve
at condition 4 is nearer to the exit which means that there is a lesser length covered for the recovery
of the friction loss due to pressure difference.

CONCLUSION

The friction factor calculated from the condition where the gate valves are fully opened is
6.24 X 10-4. From this result, it can be used to calculate the equivalent lengths for the remaining
part of the experiment. The average equivalent length (Leq) for half-open valve 1 and 2, fully open
valve 1 and half-open valve 2, half-open valve 1 and fully open valve 2, were calculated to be 8.88,
6.06, and 5.43, respectively. The determined equivalent lengths and friction factor were used to
finally obtain the friction losses for different conditions.

The results of the experiment were greatly influenced by the constant reading given by the
gauges. These inaccuracies were probably caused by malfunctioning or the presence of vacuum
from the flow of fluid. Although the problem was answered by accounting the inaccurate reading,
it had still resulted into several outliers which may be a probable cause to obtaining a different
result.

G. REFERENCE

[1] Ntengwe, F. W., Chikwa, M., & Witika, L. K. (2015). Evaluation Of Friction Losses In Pipes
And Fittings Of Process Engineering Plants. International Journal of Scientific & Technology
Research, 4(4), 330-336.